The dominos keep on teetering and toplling

Marriage inequality in the USA is, step by step, becoming recognised as being as unjustifiable as slavery, denial of women's suffrage; and racial discrimination were, back in the day when abolitionists, suffragettes and African Americans were fighting for their equality rights and freedoms.

Australia unfortunately presently has a former catholic seminarian as Prime Minister, and refuses parliament a conscience vote on marriage equality...so, Australian LGBT folk will have to cool their heels a little longer.

After the ruling on Friday, Jayne Rowse, left, and April DeBoer, who sued to overturn the state law, spoke in Ferndale, Mich. Credit Paul Sancya/Associated Press
" A federal judge in Detroit struck down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage on Friday, the latest in a string of court decisions across the country to rule that denying marriage to gay and lesbian couples is a violation of the Constitution.

“The guarantee of equal protection must prevail,” wrote Judge Bernard A. Friedman of Federal District Court...."

Marriage inequality in the USA is, step by step, becoming recognised as being as unjustifiable as slavery, denial of women's suffrage; and racial discrimination were, back in the day when abolitionists, suffragettes and African Americans were fighting for their equality rights and freedoms.

Australia unfortunately presently has a former catholic seminarian as Prime Minister, and refuses parliament a conscience vote on marriage equality...so, Australian LGBT folk will have to cool their heels a little longer.

Marriage inequality? Marriage, for as long as it has been called marriage, whether back in the Roman days, druidian days, whenever, has never been between two of the same gender. I agree with giving equal rights as far as insurance, home ownership, things such as that, but Marriage is NOT between gay couples. But the aggressive "You have to support me or we will shut you down with lawsuits or protests" ideology of the gay community is asinine. Whats next, marriage for lovers of German Shepherds, quarter horses?

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery "- Thomas Jefferson

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

"Duty, then, is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less."- Robert E. Lee

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

"If the Constitution and the Union established by our forefathers" were "restored" then there will be no truer supporters of that union and that Constitution than the Southern people. Every brave people who considered their rights attacked and their Constitutional liberties invaded, would have done as we did. Our conduct was not caused by any insurrectionary spirit nor can it be termed rebellion, for our construction of the Constitution under which we lived and acted was the same from its adoption and for eighty years we have been taught and educated by the founders of the Republic and their written declaration which controlled our consciences and actions."(General R.E. Lee)

Civil unions are fine with me, with all the same "benefits" as marriage is legally recognized.....
I respect an individuals right to do whatever they want to do, within the norms of society. But marriage is between a man and a woman.

I for one am tired of the continual drum beat of the LGBT community to have marriage acknowledge for their partnerships.... Why is it necessary to have their lifestyle jammed down societies throat. To equate the marriage issue to slavery, racial discrimination and so on.... is just B.S.
YD

"Freedom isn't free" --Colonel Walter Hitchcock
“The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” General 'Mad Dog' James Mattis
non semper erit aestas- It will not always be summer (be prepared for hard times)!!

Civil unions are fine with me, with all the same "benefits" as marriage is legally recognized.....
I respect an individuals right to do whatever they want to do, within the norms of society. But marriage is between a man and a woman.

I for one am tired of the continual drum beat of the LGBT community to have marriage acknowledge for their partnerships.... Why is it necessary to have their lifestyle jammed down societies throat. To equate the marriage issue to slavery, racial discrimination and so on.... is just B.S.
YD

Click to expand...

I concur, completely.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery "- Thomas Jefferson

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

"Duty, then, is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less."- Robert E. Lee

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

"If the Constitution and the Union established by our forefathers" were "restored" then there will be no truer supporters of that union and that Constitution than the Southern people. Every brave people who considered their rights attacked and their Constitutional liberties invaded, would have done as we did. Our conduct was not caused by any insurrectionary spirit nor can it be termed rebellion, for our construction of the Constitution under which we lived and acted was the same from its adoption and for eighty years we have been taught and educated by the founders of the Republic and their written declaration which controlled our consciences and actions."(General R.E. Lee)

There was a time in some places in America that anti-miscegenation laws prevented interracial marriage....marriage being the sacred institution of not only wedlock between a man and a woman, but also the wedlock of a man and a woman of the same race. Anti-miscegenation laws have only just been declared unconstitutional within living memory (1967) with the Loving_v._Virginia decision.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia ). Eventually, the same fate awaits anti-LGBT marriage laws. The 14th Amendment will eventually trump the 10th Amendment.

1967 Repeal of anti-miscegenation laws over time
Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967

It is most probable that the progress of LGBT marriage equality will follow the same general pattern as happened with the repeal of anti-miscegenation legislation...most likely with the "bible belt" States being the last to change.

Last edited: Apr 1, 2014

Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools. - unsourced

To deny your oppressor's, or your own humanity is to descend into barbarism. - V. Chelloveck

Survival is a battle for the mind...mainly one's own. - V. Chelloveck

A beautiful idea founded on faulty reasoning is like a turd wrapped in gold foil, tinsel and glitter. Neither are wholesome if swollowed whole! - V. Chelloveck

What is a religion, but a cult with a larger following and a veneer of respectability. - V.C.

If you pick the "Right One" the first time, there is No Need for a Second.... or a Divorce Lawdog...... Marriage is the MOST Important Choice, one can make in their Life, Yet it is, Likely, the least Researched Choice, many make in their lives.... ..... YMMV.....

Bruce in alaska (BTPost) An Atheist will never be able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO"!! ....

The divorce lawyers are already looking at new Bentleys and mansions in Malibu!!

Click to expand...

If divorce lawyers don't already have Bentleys and mansions in Malibu (or wherever) consequent to heterosexual divorce work, then one would have to speculate that they'd be pretty p!$$ poor divorce lawyers, if that is their specialty. Bear in mind that lawyers have always dealt with the divorce of homosexuals...just that their gay clients were more often in the closet at the time of marriage breakup. Even in the case of the generally inferior civil union arrangement, lawyers will still be involved in relationship estrangements when it comes to communal property disposition and child custody and care arrangements.

If LGBT folk wish to take the risk of impoverishment by divorce lawyer that heterosexuals take, then that is the price of equality and of the freedom to exercise the option of marriage. Being denied the option to be married, is a denial of the same liberty that heterosexuals enjoy to choose, with all the benefits, privileges, commitments, responsibilities, and risks that are attendant with marriage.

If you pick the "Right One" the first time, there is No Need for a Second.... or a Divorce Lawdog...... Marriage is the MOST Important Choice, one can make in their Life, Yet it is, Likely, the least Researched Choice, many make in their lives.... ..... YMMV.....

Click to expand...

You are quite right Bruce, for those contemplating a marriage. It is of course not an issue for those who are happy to remain spinsters and bachelors, and for whom the notion of marriage is not even a blip on their radar.

You have put your finger on the old aphorism..."Marry in haste (without due diligence and careful consideration) and repent at leisure." However, that is only half of the equation...oneself also has to be the "right one", prepared to do the necessary relationship maintenance stuff to keep the relationship healthy, vital, and sustainable. It is just as true for LGBT folk as it is for heterosexual folk.

Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools. - unsourced

To deny your oppressor's, or your own humanity is to descend into barbarism. - V. Chelloveck

Survival is a battle for the mind...mainly one's own. - V. Chelloveck

A beautiful idea founded on faulty reasoning is like a turd wrapped in gold foil, tinsel and glitter. Neither are wholesome if swollowed whole! - V. Chelloveck

What is a religion, but a cult with a larger following and a veneer of respectability. - V.C.

Yet it is, Likely, the least Researched Choice, many make in their lives....

Click to expand...

Oh, I had to research a lot. ;-) Research was actually rather enjoyable most of the time. It did require a substantial R&D budget but a lot of it could go on the books and written off as entertainment, not client entertainment mind you. Must admit... I do look back upon some of that experimental research, research and development with some fond memories and honestly only a few not so fond. The research subjects might have some differing test results but I don't think many are negative data points, just disappointed headcount allocations for additional research didn't materialize. Of course a good amount of the project discontinuation was the consequent of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEAs) as part of all that.

Results... I finally figured out the skills sets of an elementary school teacher were prerequisitional for relational part tolerances for long term contract viability and warranty cost elimination. I wasn't married until late 30s and been going strong for 18 years.

This whole thing marriage thing should be completely irrelevant to the federal government and with just one significant exception, inheritance in the event of no will/contract, should be completely irrelevant to state and local government. The fact that government laws and regulations require the government to deal with all this is proof positive that government is way way too involved in the day to day lives of people. Government should be out of the marriage license business, the marriage dissolution business, the marriage conflict resolution business, spousal rights business, they should be out of all of it! Let churches deal with the whole concept of marriage and let them then use basic contract law to deal with the partnership aspects, the same law that would deal with two gals opening a hardware store. (sorry ;-)

And @chelloveck , @Dunerunner was quite correct. It is NEW Bentley's and mansions to be picked out. The current ones are so last year's model....

“Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." John Galt (Ayn Rand)

Patents are not evil, profit is not a dirty word, providing for your family's future is not a sin, and what is mine is not your's just because you want it. Kellory.I have received NO secret government orders.(Watch for this notice to be removed)

This whole thing marriage thing should be completely irrelevant to the federal government and with just one significant exception, inheritance in the event of no will/contract, should be completely irrelevant to state and local government. The fact that government laws and regulations require the government to deal with all this is proof positive that government is way way too involved in the day to day lives of people. Government should be out of the marriage license business, the marriage dissolution business, the marriage conflict resolution business, spousal rights business, they should be out of all of it! Let churches deal with the whole concept of marriage and let them then use basic contract law to deal with the partnership aspects, the same law that would deal with two gals opening a hardware store. (sorry ;-)

AT

Click to expand...

I doubt that is ever likely to happen for as long as governments give preferential treatment to married couples over unmarried couples, whether heterosexual, or LGBT.

The notion that churches get a monopoly on who may and may not be married, what rights the respective spouses may have, and whether a marriage may be terminated at the discretion of the matrimonial pair is an appalling suggestion. Within the Abrahamic monotheistic, and many other faith traditions....women would do extremely badly out of that arrangement. Having the various churches, mosques, temples, synagogues administer the whole damned shebang using canon and sharia law would an unmitigated disaster. Clerics and their holy scriptures cause enough domestic and conjugal misery as it is.

Let marriage be a secular enterprise with the contractual parties having the option of deciding how the marriage is solemnised. The government issues the marriage license and registers the marriage...and the marriage is solemnised by an authorised celebrant, be they a civil celebrant or a religious celebrant. However, religious celebrants and religious institutions should be exempt from solemnising a marriage that is contrary to their faith's doctrinal convictions and traditions.

The issue is not so much where the wedding ceremony is held, and who officiates at it...but whether or not the sexual preferences of the couple are at all relevant to the cultural practice of marriage. The irony is that a bisexual male, and a bisexual female may legally be married together, and yet have same sex polyamorous relations with others outside of that relationship, but a same sex LGT couple committed to a monogomous relationship with each other cannot be legally married in many jurisdictions. Go figure?

Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools. - unsourced

To deny your oppressor's, or your own humanity is to descend into barbarism. - V. Chelloveck

Survival is a battle for the mind...mainly one's own. - V. Chelloveck

A beautiful idea founded on faulty reasoning is like a turd wrapped in gold foil, tinsel and glitter. Neither are wholesome if swollowed whole! - V. Chelloveck

What is a religion, but a cult with a larger following and a veneer of respectability. - V.C.

If gay couples want to be united by a civil magistrate or even some apostate "church" and be recognized by employers and by the govt, be it local, state or federal, then I say more power to them. I have no objections to it.
But marriage is ordained by God, it is and always has been the domain of the church. You make your vows not to each other but before and to God. So for mostly, nonreligious people to demand the "right" to be married is laughable.
The state has no business in the marriage business. This only came about during early part of the last century. To combat diseases and birth defects the state started demanding proof of fitness and that you were not too closely related in order to be "officially" wed. Remember having to take a blood test to get a marriage license?
This nonsense about "gay rights" has nothing to do with "rights" it is about a minority trying to intimidate and force the majority to give them special status and recognition.

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - John F. Kennedy

"You took the good things for granted-now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty that you must fulfill. For every hope that you entertain, you have a task that you must perform. For every good that you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer." -George Washington

"God" means too many different things to too many different people to have "God" ordain anything, in my opinion. I'm married, in my eyes, the eyes of my spouse and my children, and even in the eyes of the government; but my marriage has nothing to do with any church.

My first marriage was in a church, and performed by a minister, and that marriage went sooo well. This marriage was performed outside, in a park, in the company of my friends and family, and not a minister in sight. After nearly two decades, I think this one is going to stick.

I don't consider someone married in a church to be any more (or less) married than I am; and I don't think that same sex couples being married makes me any less married. No skin off of my nose.

I don't need a god to bless what for me is a decision between two consenting adults; a decision that has legal and social implications, but, for me, no religious ones.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire

"It's not what you look at that's important; it's what you see." - Thoreau

"I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace." - Paine

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Jefferson

I doubt that is ever likely to happen for as long as governments give preferential treatment to married couples over unmarried couples, whether heterosexual, or LGBT.

The notion that churches get a monopoly on who may and may not be married, what rights the respective spouses may have, and whether a marriage may be terminated at the discretion of the matrimonial pair is an appalling suggestion. Within the Abrahamic monotheistic, and many other faith traditions....women would do extremely badly out of that arrangement. Having the various churches, mosques, temples, synagogues administer the whole damned shebang using canon and sharia law would an unmitigated disaster. Clerics and their holy scriptures cause enough domestic and conjugal misery as it is.

Let marriage be a secular enterprise with the contractual parties having the option of deciding how the marriage is solemnised. The government issues the marriage license and registers the marriage...and the marriage is solemnised by an authorised celebrant, be they a civil celebrant or a religious celebrant. However, religious celebrants and religious institutions should be exempt from solemnising a marriage that is contrary to their faith's doctrinal convictions and traditions.

The issue is not so much where the wedding ceremony is held, and who officiates at it...but whether or not the sexual preferences of the couple are at all relevant to the cultural practice of marriage. The irony is that a bisexual male, and a bisexual female may legally be married together, and yet have same sex polyamorous relations with others outside of that relationship, but a same sex LGT couple committed to a monogomous relationship with each other cannot be legally married in many jurisdictions. Go figure?

Click to expand...

Huh?? Did you miss the first and last sentences of my post? Maybe the significant implications of those were too obscue. If so I can try again.

I don't need a god to bless what for me is a decision between two consenting adults; a decision that has legal and social implications, but, for me, no religious ones.

Click to expand...

That is the definition of a civil union, call it marriage if you like, and I have no problem with it. But to codify the "right" for anyone to be "married" opens the door to many unforeseen, or not, consequences. Say same sex marriage is legalized and a couple wants to be married in a traditional church. If that church refuses will they be sued? So we again force people of faith to either go against their beliefs or face civil and or criminal repercussions? That is the ultimate goal, that is the "Gay agenda", to force people of faith to acquiesce to their demands.
If governments want to pass laws that allow them to be legally, civilly, married, laws that prohibit discrimination against them by insurance companies, government pensions and benefits etc. that is fine. But if anyone thinks that is the end of it, and there is no further "agenda" then I have some prime ocean front real estate in Arizona I will sell cheap.

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - John F. Kennedy

"You took the good things for granted-now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty that you must fulfill. For every hope that you entertain, you have a task that you must perform. For every good that you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer." -George Washington

Marriage is a contract between you, your spouse and God. It has been in every culture in the history of the world. It has nothing to do with the state or even getting married in a church. I have known people in polygamous marriages that were not sanctioned by the church, even though there is nothing in scripture to prohibit it. They were married in the eyes of God and made their vows to their spouse and to God in front of witnesses. They are just as much married as anyone who had a traditional ceremony in a church.

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - John F. Kennedy

"You took the good things for granted-now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty that you must fulfill. For every hope that you entertain, you have a task that you must perform. For every good that you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer." -George Washington

The United States Government is a Two Faced corrupt entity when it comes to marriage, traditional, and non-traditional. Here the Gay & Lesbians are demanding, and getting Federal Judges to grant them what they want, but 140 years ago this SAME Federal Government passed Statutes, that we're ENFORCED by Federal Judges, and US Marshals, put people in Federal Prisons, stole Assets, of the Church. These Statutes are still on the Books, that discriminated against the Mormons, and their Marriage Practices. It is hypocrisy at its worst, and yet few even consider that ISSUE, at all. How about them Apples, all you Bleeding Hearts.... Let's us all hear your justification for those actions by our Federal Government.

Bruce in alaska (BTPost) An Atheist will never be able to say, "I TOLD YOU SO"!! ....

Huh?? Did you miss the first and last sentences of my post? Maybe the significant implications of those were too obscue. If so I can try again.

Click to expand...

I didn't miss the last sentence of your post...and it wasn't obscure...it's just a suggestion too bizarre to contemplate. All that will happen is that the regulatory functions of marriage, formerly undertaken by the secular state are devolved upon sectarian agencies that have their own priorities, biases and interests that may conflict with the persons negotiating a business partnersh um...I mean a marriage contract.

The Catholic Church's inability to put it's own interests second to the interests of paedophile victims, by using church canon law as a shield against the secular law of the land, and by abusing the secular law of the land to limit its liabilities to paedophile victims is evidence enough that religious institutions can't be trusted to administer their own shonky laws fairly and justly. How are they any better able to competently administer and adjudicate fairly and justly upon quasi commercial marriage contracts. As to Imams issuing equitable marriage fatwas....LMFAO! If the man is a Moslem and the woman is a Christian...who would get jurisdiction? Priest or imam?

Why should religious institutions broadly...not just Christian churches have a monopoly on regulating the cultural artifact known as marriage. I am not quite sure which is more likely to intrude into the personal life of a marriage relationship...the Church or the State. In my view, a pox on them both. As an atheist....why would I want a religious institution to have any involvement in my liberty to marry whom I wish...straight or gay, or divorce the one I am married to?

Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools. - unsourced

To deny your oppressor's, or your own humanity is to descend into barbarism. - V. Chelloveck

Survival is a battle for the mind...mainly one's own. - V. Chelloveck

A beautiful idea founded on faulty reasoning is like a turd wrapped in gold foil, tinsel and glitter. Neither are wholesome if swollowed whole! - V. Chelloveck

What is a religion, but a cult with a larger following and a veneer of respectability. - V.C.